My ISP's response to SMTP Queueing

My ISP's response to SMTP Queueing

Post by Andy Web » Fri, 19 Dec 1997 04:00:00



Just gotta get a dig in here...

Unix has regex and NT has????  Paging Dr. Clue...

--
=======================================================

Simpler-Webb, Inc.                           Austin, TX
             "Mauve has more RAM" - Dilbert
(address munged to protect me from spam spewing cretins)
=======================================================



>>So being 30 years younger is a good thing?

>In the computer industry, given how much has changed in 30 years, yes, it
>is.

>>Well that would have to be the dumbest reason yet I've heard for NT
>>(or any operating system for that matter) being great.  You fail to
>>realise that all flavours of UNIX have developed over that 30 years!

>Hmm... isn't one of the oft-cited great advantages of UNIX supposed to be
>its portability?

>>Don't get me wrong, NT has it's place, but give respect to other
>>operating systems too.

>UNIX is a nice operating system, but it is now past its prime.

>>Remember, UNIX and NetWare can both perform
>>quotas on the amount of data stored on a server based on the user -
>>NT4 is not capable of doing this straight out of the box.

>True for NT4.

>Windows NT can handle encrypted challenge/response authentication right out
>of the box; UNIX cannot.

>So?

>>So why is this not included if "so much has been learned
>>duing that time"?

>Why hasn't challenge/response been included in UNIX over a period ten times
>as long?

>>I would really love to have one of my users fill
>>up my server's hard disk just because they felt like it...

>Why?

>I have administered systems in the past and had unlimited quotas for some
>users, and I've never had a user fill up any device.  It's not a common
>occurrence.

>--
>Anthony

 
 
 

My ISP's response to SMTP Queueing

Post by Anthon » Fri, 19 Dec 1997 04:00:00


What does regex do?

--
Anthony


>Just gotta get a dig in here...

>Unix has regex and NT has????  Paging Dr. Clue...

>--
>=======================================================

>Simpler-Webb, Inc.                           Austin, TX
>             "Mauve has more RAM" - Dilbert
>(address munged to protect me from spam spewing cretins)
>=======================================================


>>>So being 30 years younger is a good thing?

>>In the computer industry, given how much has changed in 30 years, yes, it
>>is.

>>>Well that would have to be the dumbest reason yet I've heard for NT
>>>(or any operating system for that matter) being great.  You fail to
>>>realise that all flavours of UNIX have developed over that 30 years!

>>Hmm... isn't one of the oft-cited great advantages of UNIX supposed to be
>>its portability?

>>>Don't get me wrong, NT has it's place, but give respect to other
>>>operating systems too.

>>UNIX is a nice operating system, but it is now past its prime.

>>>Remember, UNIX and NetWare can both perform
>>>quotas on the amount of data stored on a server based on the user -
>>>NT4 is not capable of doing this straight out of the box.

>>True for NT4.

>>Windows NT can handle encrypted challenge/response authentication right
out
>>of the box; UNIX cannot.

>>So?

>>>So why is this not included if "so much has been learned
>>>duing that time"?

>>Why hasn't challenge/response been included in UNIX over a period ten
times
>>as long?

>>>I would really love to have one of my users fill
>>>up my server's hard disk just because they felt like it...

>>Why?

>>I have administered systems in the past and had unlimited quotas for some
>>users, and I've never had a user fill up any device.  It's not a common
>>occurrence.

>>--
>>Anthony


 
 
 

My ISP's response to SMTP Queueing

Post by Andy Web » Sat, 20 Dec 1997 04:00:00


http://enterprise.ic.gc.ca/~jfriedl/regex/

--
=======================================================
Andy Webb

Simpler-Webb, Inc.                Austin, TX     "Mauve has more RAM" -
Dilbert
=======================================================


>What does regex do?

>--
>Anthony


>>Just gotta get a dig in here...

>>Unix has regex and NT has????  Paging Dr. Clue...

>>--
>>=======================================================

>>Simpler-Webb, Inc.                           Austin, TX
>>             "Mauve has more RAM" - Dilbert
>>(address munged to protect me from spam spewing cretins)
>>=======================================================




- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>>>>So being 30 years younger is a good thing?

>>>In the computer industry, given how much has changed in 30 years, yes, it
>>>is.

>>>>Well that would have to be the dumbest reason yet I've heard for NT
>>>>(or any operating system for that matter) being great.  You fail to
>>>>realise that all flavours of UNIX have developed over that 30 years!

>>>Hmm... isn't one of the oft-cited great advantages of UNIX supposed to be
>>>its portability?

>>>>Don't get me wrong, NT has it's place, but give respect to other
>>>>operating systems too.

>>>UNIX is a nice operating system, but it is now past its prime.

>>>>Remember, UNIX and NetWare can both perform
>>>>quotas on the amount of data stored on a server based on the user -
>>>>NT4 is not capable of doing this straight out of the box.

>>>True for NT4.

>>>Windows NT can handle encrypted challenge/response authentication right
>out
>>>of the box; UNIX cannot.

>>>So?

>>>>So why is this not included if "so much has been learned
>>>>duing that time"?

>>>Why hasn't challenge/response been included in UNIX over a period ten
>times
>>>as long?

>>>>I would really love to have one of my users fill
>>>>up my server's hard disk just because they felt like it...

>>>Why?

>>>I have administered systems in the past and had unlimited quotas for some
>>>users, and I've never had a user fill up any device.  It's not a common
>>>occurrence.

>>>--
>>>Anthony

 
 
 

My ISP's response to SMTP Queueing

Post by Gary Hest » Fri, 26 Dec 1997 04:00:00





>>Sun srv4  runs a heck of a lot better that NT
>>by a huge margin..
>Based on what criteria, exactly?

Try "reliability", "speed", and "efficient use of resources".

NT and Exchange aren't reliable. (One local NT expert has his servers
set up to reboot weekly, simply to avoid crashes.) NT/Exchange are
slow--Unix MTAs process mail a *lot* faster. And, a Unix box can do
the job with lots less hardware; we have a PPro 200 with 128MB of RAM
and F/W SCSI drives running *only* NT and Exchange (anything else
running, and it has problems) that could be replaced with a 486DX2/66
with 16MB, except that management decided the network design instead
of anybody that knew anything about networking.

As a Byte editorial put it, NT is a very stable OS--compared to the past
offerings from Microsoft. That doesn't make it stable compared to other
products. I have an acquaintence who has a Sun machine that's been up
for over 620 days. Running mail, web, and I think some ftp. We're
happy if we can keep our NT servers up two weeks without something
crashing.

NT does have a flashy appearance, and will allow some things to be done
fairly easily--but try adding a half-dozen aliases to an Exchange mailbox.
I can do that in about three minutes on a Unix box; with NT/Exchange it
takes about three minutes *per alias*. And that doesn't even get into
stupidities like CTL-ALT-SPACEBAR triggering an uncontrolled reboot on
NT Server.

Gary

--


"Mother! I didn't expect to see you here so soon!"  "Nor I you, Princess."

 
 
 

My ISP's response to SMTP Queueing

Post by L.Bren.. » Fri, 26 Dec 1997 04:00:00







>>>Sun srv4  runs a heck of a lot better that NT
>>>by a huge margin..

>>Based on what criteria, exactly?

> Try "reliability", "speed", and "efficient use of resources".

> NT and Exchange aren't reliable. (One local NT expert has his servers

  Well, that *is* changing. Certainly current versions are a far cry from
  last January, for instance. I can quite clearly remember when UNIX
  was in a similar boat - albeit a long time ago.

Quote:> set up to reboot weekly, simply to avoid crashes.) NT/Exchange are
> slow--Unix MTAs process mail a *lot* faster. And, a Unix box can do

  That's true. I find it quite puzzling why the MTA seems to churn.
  Something I intend to explore and understand.

Quote:> the job with lots less hardware; we have a PPro 200 with 128MB of RAM
> and F/W SCSI drives running *only* NT and Exchange (anything else
> running, and it has problems) that could be replaced with a 486DX2/66
> with 16MB, except that management decided the network design instead
> of anybody that knew anything about networking.

  VERY true. Of course, as with *all* hardware questions, it's only
  relevant for a short time-frame. 12-way Alpha's at low cost means
  that a couple of years from now nobody will even remember, let
  alone care, about the way NT chewed up hardware.

Quote:> As a Byte editorial put it, NT is a very stable OS--compared to the past
> offerings from Microsoft. That doesn't make it stable compared to other

  Absolutely. BSD was a leap forward too ;-)

Quote:> products. I have an acquaintence who has a Sun machine that's been up
> for over 620 days. Running mail, web, and I think some ftp. We're
> happy if we can keep our NT servers up two weeks without something
> crashing.

  Well, I have to query that. NT Server with correct patches SHOULD be
  staying up. I've got machines that we're booting every 2 to 3 months
  for various reasons - but certainly not 2 weeks.
  UNIX used to dump core too :-) Compared to the VMScluster which has
  been running for YEARS without being offline, I can giggle about
  UNIX 'reliability' too. It's all relative.

Quote:> NT does have a flashy appearance, and will allow some things to be
done
> fairly easily--but try adding a half-dozen aliases to an Exchange mailbox.
> I can do that in about three minutes on a Unix box; with NT/Exchange it
> takes about three minutes *per alias*. And that doesn't even get into
> stupidities like CTL-ALT-SPACEBAR triggering an uncontrolled reboot on
> NT Server.

  That's simply your inexperience with NT. You *can* script this sort
  of thing given the right collection of tools and thinking. Just like when
  your first encountered UNIX, you need to collect the tools and learn...

  The whole computing world changes - and is EXACTLY the same.

 
 
 

My ISP's response to SMTP Queueing

Post by Gary Hest » Sun, 28 Dec 1997 04:00:00


Subject line changed to accurately reflect contents, so that those
of you with killfiles can ignore it.





  [ ... ]
>>NT and Exchange aren't reliable. (One local NT expert has his servers
>>set up to reboot weekly, simply to avoid crashes.) NT/Exchange are
>>slow--Unix MTAs process mail a *lot* faster. And, a Unix box can do
>>the job with lots less hardware; we have a PPro 200 with 128MB of RAM
>>and F/W SCSI drives running *only* NT and Exchange (anything else
>>running, and it has problems) that could be replaced with a 486DX2/66
>>with 16MB, except that management decided the network design instead
>>of anybody that knew anything about networking.
>NT4.0 and Exchange5.5 on an AST Premmia dual-P90 w/128M RAM. Uptime is
>now at 312 days. Works just fine. It also runs WINS.

The above system supports NT4.0SP3 and Exchange 5.0SP1, and it's only
dog-slow since we put in the extra 64MB. Before that, it was hitting
100% CPU utilization regularly, and averaging over 90% all day. Dog-slow
is a big improvement.

Quote:>>As a Byte editorial put it, NT is a very stable OS--compared to the past
>>offerings from Microsoft. That doesn't make it stable compared to other
>>products. I have an acquaintence who has a Sun machine that's been up
>>for over 620 days. Running mail, web, and I think some ftp. We're
>>happy if we can keep our NT servers up two weeks without something
>>crashing.
>And if your other friend didn't reboot his NT boxes every week,
>perhaps they could match that. I know of other NT machines that are
>run very hard and have uptime of over a year.

Not a friend, but an acquaintence through a local newsgroup. He's also an
author of a few books about NT Server admin and use. And he had to set up
the auto reboot *because* it wouldn't stay up.

Quote:>>NT does have a flashy appearance, and will allow some things to be done
>>fairly easily--but try adding a half-dozen aliases to an Exchange mailbox.
>>I can do that in about three minutes on a Unix box; with NT/Exchange it
>>takes about three minutes *per alias*. And that doesn't even get into
>>stupidities like CTL-ALT-SPACEBAR triggering an uncontrolled reboot on
>>NT Server.
>I just tried that on the above-mentioned machine. Start to finish was
>right at 30 secs.

Logged in at the console of the Exchange server, it takes that long for
the "New" button in the Email Addresses tab to come back and let me
select what kind I want it to be, that long again for it to open the
dialog box so I can start typing the address I want to add. It then
takes that long again for it to save the address when I click "Ok", so
I can start on the next one. On the Linux box across the room, the
addresses go in as fast as I can type (which isn't the fastest in the
world, but at least I'm not waiting on stupid boxes to open).

Quote:>sounds like the difference between an admin who knows what he's doing
>and others who don't have a clue.

So, please clarify just what the hell I'm supposed to do that makes it
open the boxes faster? Click the mouse with my pinkie finger instead of
the forefinger? Chant "Praise Bill!" three times before opening the user
mailbox? What I want to do is haul every Microsoft product we have across
the street and float test it in the duck pond, but I'm not allowed to
do that. (The EPA would object to the water pollution, and the SPCA would
charge me with cruelty to the ducks.)

If there's some magical competence issue here that controls the speed of
the boxes opening, please post it, Oh Mighty Admin. I've been working
with computers for over 25 years, doing network and system admin for the
last twelve or so. If you want to claim that I don't know what I'm doing
when I report the (hideous) responsiveness of an NT Server, go ahead. I
know what I'm seeing happen in front of me, and what hassles we've had
to go through with NT and Exchange. If you're not having them, you're
lucky--and the software is more inconstent than I thought.

We had Linux installed on one of the G6-200s for a while; it was rock
solid and blazingly fast. NT isn't coming close to it in performance.
It's not a hardware issue, because we were forced to format the Linux
installation and install NT instead, so it is literally running on the
exact same hardware (plus 64MB).

Quote:>For every horror story you dredge up about NT, as you've done above, I
>can dredge up ones for Mac, Solaris, Linux, OS/2...

Seems to be a lot more for NT. I don't think any of the others reboot
if you hit CTL-ALT-SPACEBAR on the consoles.

By the way, our servers were configured by a consultant, who is a
Microsoft Certified type--MCSE and MCT. I'm being required to get
a MCSE (one of those after-the-hiring added criteria), and have
received the MCP wallpaper as a Win95 Product Specialist. But I didn't
design or implement the network, I just get to deal with it on a
daily basis, and catch all the flack from the users and management
when things spontaineously stop working.

Gary

--


"Mother! I didn't expect to see you here so soon!"  "Nor I you, Princess."

 
 
 

My ISP's response to SMTP Queueing

Post by Rich Matheis » Sun, 28 Dec 1997 04:00:00


                                        [ snip ]

Quote:>The above system supports NT4.0SP3 and Exchange 5.0SP1, and it's only
>dog-slow since we put in the extra 64MB. Before that, it was hitting
>100% CPU utilization regularly, and averaging over 90% all day. Dog-slow
>is a big improvement.

A system (ANY system) that performs like that is in serious distress.
Have you used the PerfMon app to find out exactly (or even
approximately) what's going on that causes the O/S to run this way? Is
it an application problem, paging problem (probably not or you would
have mentioned the constant disk activity), or what?

I've seen Exchange systems brought to their knees by "dueling
auto-responders" before. If that's the problem it may be fairly easy
to remedy (or at least give you a place to begin). I've also see
drwtsn32 enter a loop and suck up 97%+ of all CPU time.

                                        [ snip ]

Quote:>>And if your other friend didn't reboot his NT boxes every week,
>>perhaps they could match that. I know of other NT machines that are
>>run very hard and have uptime of over a year.

>Not a friend, but an acquaintence through a local newsgroup. He's also an
>author of a few books about NT Server admin and use. And he had to set up
>the auto reboot *because* it wouldn't stay up.

Not a shot at your pal, but there've been a few books I've read that
gave out a lot of bad and wrong information. Authoring a book lately
(well, _some_ books, anyway) seems to be a matter of rewriting the
product documentation and producing a bazillion screen shots that
produce absolutely nothing of value except to fill up the
six-hundred-plus pages that publishing houses seem to demand before
they'll print the damn thing.

                        [ big snip ]

Quote:>Seems to be a lot more for NT. I don't think any of the others reboot
>if you hit CTL-ALT-SPACEBAR on the consoles.

I can't think of any reason your machine does that, either. It
certainly doesn't happen on any of the ones I've tried it on! Does
this happen when ANY app has the focus or is it limited to only some
(or one) app? It's certainly something you might want to post in one
of the NT news groups.

Quote:>By the way, our servers were configured by a consultant, who is a
>Microsoft Certified type--MCSE and MCT. I'm being required to get
>a MCSE (one of those after-the-hiring added criteria), and have
>received the MCP wallpaper as a Win95 Product Specialist. But I didn't
>design or implement the network, I just get to deal with it on a
>daily basis, and catch all the flack from the users and management
>when things spontaineously stop working.

Neither the MCSE or MCT certification requires Exchange Server. And
simply passing the test doesn't guarantee competence -- only
familiarity -- with the product. The same goes for the NT requirements
(and the Win95 test).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Matheisen                           Wang Laboratories
Microsoft Certified System Engineer         Tewksbury, MA USA

 
 
 

My ISP's response to SMTP Queueing

Post by Gary Hest » Sun, 28 Dec 1997 04:00:00






>>Subject line changed to accurately reflect contents, so that those
>>of you with killfiles can ignore it.
>>>>  [ ... ] we have a PPro 200 with 128MB of RAM
>>>>and F/W SCSI drives running *only* NT and Exchange [ ... ]
>>The above system supports NT4.0SP3 and Exchange 5.0SP1, and it's only
>>dog-slow since we put in the extra 64MB. Before that, it was hitting
>>100% CPU utilization regularly, and averaging over 90% all day. Dog-slow
>>is a big improvement.
>Dog-slow AFTER adding RAM? Something's up. Have you done any
>troubleshooting?

Besides trying to watch Performance Monitor, checking Event Viewer, shutting
down all services we didn't need on the server, digging through Help, and
searching Knowledge base? If we shut down the cc:Mail Connector it works
better, but still slow. Before doubling the RAM, it'd take minutes to
open Exchange Administrator, now it's about one and a half.

  [ ... ]

Quote:>You're doing it wrong. Yes, it can be done through the GUI, but it
>doesn't *have* to be. It is clear you haven't done much research on
>your topic.

Well, I can't seem to feed them in through Import (Export sure won't
save aliases, just the primary address of each type)--even if I could do
it that way, trying to figure out the format would take as long as
going through the GUI. Besides, I thought the GUI was the whole purpose
of all Windows products. All the data is stored in the Information Stores
anyway, which can't be directly edited. Forgive me if I find entering
"alias: userid" in a text file easier and faster.

  [ ... ]

Quote:>In Linux, you can manage a lot of things in X-Windows, but a lot of
>times it's faster to do it at the CLI. Same with a lot of things in NT
>and Exchange. Research your topic before flaming.

NT and Exchange make it difficult to do most things from a command line,
usually by burying things in "databases" which aren't accessible from
anything other than the GUI tools, and those are somewhat haphazard at
best.

Quote:>>If there's some magical competence issue here that controls the speed of
>>the boxes opening, please post it, Oh Mighty Admin. I've been working
>>with computers for over 25 years, doing network and system admin for the
>>last twelve or so. If you want to claim that I don't know what I'm doing
>>when I report the (hideous) responsiveness of an NT Server, go ahead. I
>>know what I'm seeing happen in front of me, and what hassles we've had
>>to go through with NT and Exchange. If you're not having them, you're
>>lucky--and the software is more inconstent than I thought.
>Good. With that much time in the field, you're used to reading
>documentation. Why you're not doing it here I don't know.

I've read everything that came with the software--which was the cover
of the CD case and the installation key. I'd be reading the Exchange
Resource Kit in the near future, but as we got halfway through our
MCSE effort, the owner decided he's not going to buy any more books
(we're not even getting formal training; the IS&T manager is, and he
tries to pass it on to the rest of us), just two subscriptions to
Technet which will have to live with the servers. I'll probably go
buy the Exchange RK myself, as it's hard to make notes in the margins
of a screen from the CD. I'm nearly finished with the NT Server
Networking Guide, and haven't seen anything in it that appears to
relate to the performance problems we're seeing. (Even being a speed
reader, I can only go through and absorb so much in a given time.)

Quote:>Luck has nothing to do with it. With that many years in the industry,
>you're fully aware of that. In looking over schematics for hardware
>and source code, I've yet to come across a box that says "and here
>luck makes it work."
>>We had Linux installed on one of the G6-200s for a while; it was rock
>>solid and blazingly fast. NT isn't coming close to it in performance.
>>It's not a hardware issue, because we were forced to format the Linux
>>installation and install NT instead, so it is literally running on the
>>exact same hardware (plus 64MB).
>Are you referring to the console or network access?

Console. In both cases.

Quote:>>>For every horror story you dredge up about NT, as you've done above, I
>>>can dredge up ones for Mac, Solaris, Linux, OS/2...
>>Seems to be a lot more for NT. I don't think any of the others reboot
>>if you hit CTL-ALT-SPACEBAR on the consoles.
>Just tried it on all three of my NTS boxes here. Nada. Seems like a
>localized issue to me, rather than an OS-specific one.

Happens to all the NT 4.0 servers we're tried it on; certainly happens
to all six of ours.

Quote:>>By the way, our servers were configured by a consultant, who is a
>>Microsoft Certified type--MCSE and MCT.   [ ... ]
>Just as with the CNE/CNA documentation, there are MCSEs and there are
>MCSEs. My alphabet soup is MCSE, MCSD, MCT, CNE, CNA, IEEE and
>contributing IETF author. None of my certifications are paper-only. I
>use them, and have been using them.

I'm familiar with the term "paper CNE". However, none of these tests
require any real experience, it's all just answering questions. I was
under the impression that Microsoft had seen the paper CNE problem and
were trying to make the MCP process require actual knowledge. Either
I am wrong, or they failed--I don't think I have to install one NIC
to pass any of the tests.

Quote:>One instance of one machine having problems just doens't wash with me.
>I literally cannot count the thousands of NT servers I've touched this
>year. Some had problems (which I fixed), most, the large majority, did
>not.

We have the four primary servers, all of which exhibit different degrees
of problems. They were initially set up in August, and I believe we've
had to reinstall all of them at least once. One is the PDC, one a BDC,
and two are running Exchange. We went through rebuilding the Exchange
server in my building about a month ago. The BDC needed it a couple of
weeks before that. We're getting some more software that may help us
with recovery, as we can't stand the kind of downtime we're seeing.

Quote:>Where are your troubleshooting steps?

Hard to troubleshoot a server that won't boot, as our Exchange server
ended up when we tried to restore a backup while fighting an Exchange
problem. Since rebuilding, we're running the same (slow), but we lost
the databases. Our users were *real* happy. As I recall, that crash
centered around user32.dll failing to initialize, and nothing we did
(replacing the "failing" file with a clean copy, different rev copies,
searching KB) helped. Restoring was a disaster.

Quote:>                                      What have you done to isolate
>why Ctrl-Alt-Del (which is not an OS key combination - just did it on
>the three boxes here and they just looked at me, all stupid) reboots
>the machine?

CTL-ALT-SPACEBAR. It's killed all four of our primary servers at one
time or another. All of them are Gateway G6-200 systems. It's real
easy to snag the left end of the spacebar when hitting the left ALT
key with the thumb, especially when in a hurry. One guy in the other
building (where the PDC and other Exchange server are located) also
did not believe it would happen--so he tried it. He's a believer, now.

We'd heard there was something about it on KB, but a search didn't
turn up anything.

All in all, I'd rather we had a Unix box doing nothing but POP3 service,
with no databases to get corrupted. But as I said previously, the decision
wasn't mine.

Gary

--


"Mother! I didn't expect to see you here so soon!"  "Nor I you, Princess."

 
 
 

My ISP's response to SMTP Queueing

Post by Gary Hest » Sun, 28 Dec 1997 04:00:00





>                                    [ snip ]

>>The above system supports NT4.0SP3 and Exchange 5.0SP1, and it's only
>>dog-slow since we put in the extra 64MB. Before that, it was hitting
>>100% CPU utilization regularly, and averaging over 90% all day. Dog-slow
>>is a big improvement.
>A system (ANY system) that performs like that is in serious distress.
>Have you used the PerfMon app to find out exactly (or even
>approximately) what's going on that causes the O/S to run this way? Is
>it an application problem, paging problem (probably not or you would
>have mentioned the constant disk activity), or what?

The idle loop uses the most CPU. I don't see any significant paging since
we added the extra 64MB.

Quote:>I've seen Exchange systems brought to their knees by "dueling
>auto-responders" before. If that's the problem it may be fairly easy
>to remedy (or at least give you a place to begin). I've also see
>drwtsn32 enter a loop and suck up 97%+ of all CPU time.

We get notes from Dr. Watson occasionally, but it doesn't seem to be the
problem. I see slow performance with empty queues. It gets almost acceptable
after 5:00PM, when there's no other activity on the net or server.

Quote:>                                    [ snip ]

>>>And if your other friend didn't reboot his NT boxes every week,
>>>perhaps they could match that. I know of other NT machines that are
>>>run very hard and have uptime of over a year.

>>Not a friend, but an acquaintence through a local newsgroup. He's also an
>>author of a few books about NT Server admin and use. And he had to set up
>>the auto reboot *because* it wouldn't stay up.

>Not a shot at your pal, but there've been a few books I've read that
>gave out a lot of bad and wrong information. Authoring a book lately
>(well, _some_ books, anyway) seems to be a matter of rewriting the
>product documentation and producing a bazillion screen shots that
>produce absolutely nothing of value except to fill up the
>six-hundred-plus pages that publishing houses seem to demand before
>they'll print the damn thing.

Yeah, some of them are mostly dumps of the Help files with a bit of
editing. We've got two third-party books on Exchange 5.0, and neither
mentions EDBUTIL. Oddly enough, neither does Help...

Quote:>                    [ big snip ]

>>Seems to be a lot more for NT. I don't think any of the others reboot
>>if you hit CTL-ALT-SPACEBAR on the consoles.
>I can't think of any reason your machine does that, either. It
>certainly doesn't happen on any of the ones I've tried it on! Does
>this happen when ANY app has the focus or is it limited to only some
>(or one) app? It's certainly something you might want to post in one
>of the NT news groups.

Happens anytime, as far as I can tell. Logged out, locked console, logged
in, whatever. It's not something I want to do extensive testing on.  :-)

Quote:>>By the way, our servers were configured by a consultant, who is a
>>Microsoft Certified type--MCSE and MCT.   [ ... ]
>Neither the MCSE or MCT certification requires Exchange Server. And
>simply passing the test doesn't guarantee competence -- only
>familiarity -- with the product. The same goes for the NT requirements
>(and the Win95 test).

I have the same opinion. Saw the same thing with NetWare CNEs. But
they're sure glad to toss 6x my pay scale to that consultant.

Gary

--


"Mother! I didn't expect to see you here so soon!"  "Nor I you, Princess."

 
 
 

My ISP's response to SMTP Queueing

Post by Rich Matheis » Mon, 29 Dec 1997 04:00:00






>>                                        [ snip ]

>>>The above system supports NT4.0SP3 and Exchange 5.0SP1, and it's only
>>>dog-slow since we put in the extra 64MB. Before that, it was hitting
>>>100% CPU utilization regularly, and averaging over 90% all day. Dog-slow
>>>is a big improvement.

>>A system (ANY system) that performs like that is in serious distress.
>>Have you used the PerfMon app to find out exactly (or even
>>approximately) what's going on that causes the O/S to run this way? Is
>>it an application problem, paging problem (probably not or you would
>>have mentioned the constant disk activity), or what?

>The idle loop uses the most CPU. I don't see any significant paging since
>we added the extra 64MB.

If Idle is topmost on the list you can pretty much exclude a problem
with CPU consumption -- especially if the slow performance happens all
the time. But in a previous post you said that the CPU consumption was
between 90% and 100% all day long - has that changed?

And the only app that runs on the server is Exchange? Is the network
"Server" server optimized for "Maximize thruput for network
applications"? What have you told the Exchange optimizer about the
environment? Have you, perhaps, limited the amount of memory the
Exchange server can use? Is this a single server/single site
organization? What kind/how many connectors? What network transport
protocols are in use on the machine? Is (if there are more than one)
there a "default" protocol selected? In the key
"HKLM/SOFTWARE/Microsoft/Exchange/Exchange Provider", what's the value
of the Rpc_Svr_Binding_Order? Does the default protocol appear first
in the list?

Have you tried an MTACHECK on the system? Have you tried an "MTA
wipe?" Are there excessive messages in the servers MTA queues? In the
IMS queues? In MTS-IN and MTS-OUT? Do you have excessive entries in
the Event Log (they can take a considerable amount of time to write)
because of any errors or the Diagnostics Logging set to a high level
on a connector, information store, mta, etc?

If Exchange services are stopped is the machine still slow? (Dumb
question, but does the machine have a "Turbo" switch?) Is the machine
still slow if you start only the four necessary Exchange services?

If you run the Exchange admin program from another machine and don't
logon at all to the Exchange server, does it still run slowly (just
trying to see if it's something in your profile/policy/startup/etc
that may be causing the problem).

There're a bazillion things to look at, but if I were you I'd start
with finding out what that CTRL-ALT-SPACEBAR thingy is. That's
*definitely* not normal. Any unusual services running? Any processes
running that you can't identify? Anything in the "run" or "runonce"
registry keys? Any unusual services in the registry?

Quote:>>I've seen Exchange systems brought to their knees by "dueling
>>auto-responders" before. If that's the problem it may be fairly easy
>>to remedy (or at least give you a place to begin). I've also see
>>drwtsn32 enter a loop and suck up 97%+ of all CPU time.

>We get notes from Dr. Watson occasionally, but it doesn't seem to be the
>problem. I see slow performance with empty queues. It gets almost acceptable
>after 5:00PM, when there's no other activity on the net or server.

If you disconnect the machine from the network entirely does the
machine speed up? Could it be as simple as a bad NIC or a switch
that's acting up? How about moving the cable to another port? Do you
have the "Simple TCP/IP" installed? Do you need it?

Do you have any hot-fixes installed on this machine? Could you be
suffering from a DoS attack? Syn-Flood? Land? Spoofed addresses?

Does a "NETSTAT -S -P TCP" or "NETSTAT -S -P UDP" show unusual
activity? How about a "NETSTAT -A" showing unusual ports in a
"LISTENING" state? What about a "NETSTAT" showing anything unusual?

                                        [ snip ]

Quote:>Yeah, some of them are mostly dumps of the Help files with a bit of
>editing. We've got two third-party books on Exchange 5.0, and neither
>mentions EDBUTIL. Oddly enough, neither does Help...

I think, in general, that's a "good thing". EDBUTIL has killed a lot
of information stores.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Matheisen                           Wang Laboratories
Microsoft Certified System Engineer         Tewksbury, MA USA